They're the exact same source!
Your claim is that the Jains were doing bad things, which justified the impalement of eight thousand jains by the shivs.
My claim is that it has no historical value whatsoever. Not the impalement, not the supposed vague persecution that occurred beforehand, not the miracle-boy's healing ability
That's not what we do when we do history though. Take claims about English monarchs being able to sure scrofula. We don't discount sources that include that, we simply look at each claim and take what is likely to be true. Look at the legends surrounding Charlemagne, for example. We don't discount every source about Charlemagne that has clearly supernatural elements because we'd have very little left if we did. Primary sources are biased, thats a thing we know and have the tools to address. There's nothing to suggest that the impalement was true (or the healing, but thats neither here nor there) - that doesn't necessarily say anything about other aspects. We don't throw Bede out because of the miracles, we throw Bede's miracles out and take what's left. We check sources against other sources and keep the bits that gel up.
The impalements probably didn't happen. We agree on that. Your extrapolation to "nothing in there happened" is clearly not justified.
You couldn't even be bothered to finish reading the sentence?
Written five centuries after the period in question, the article you linked calls it out for what it is - a Shaivite anti-Jain polemic.
Well, yes. I kinda do specifically mention that. I state, in as many words, that the article is arguing for a less historical view of the piece but - and the reason I quoted it - is because your claim that its generally not viewed as historical is not correct. It is, otherwise there would - obviously - be no need for someone to argue that it shouldn't be. I didn't quote the second half of the sentence for that reason: the point I was making was pace your assertion that it wasn't generally viewed as historical. The very existence of the article shows that thats not the case.
EDIT: Going to bed now, I did just want to add one thing I've just been thinking about.
There are loads of places on the internet where disagreeing with the Admins, Mods, etc. would be a straight out bannable offence, where that wouldn't be tolerated. It never occurred to me to tiptoe round you and, regardless of whether one of us ends up convincing the other or not I just wanted to flag up a "thank you" for making, encouraging and sustaining E in being the sort of place where that never even occurred to me as a concern.